Search Engine Activity

[Lori Holcomb]

Share your experiences from this activity and what lessons you learned. What goal/skill of 21st century learning does this activity highlight? What impact does this have on teaching and learning?

[Michael Cook]

As I mentioned on the class Moodle, I have never given much thought to how different search engines produce different results. I've always been a Google man because it was always there. For this activity, I used Bing.com, AltaVista.com, and Google.com. I was intrigued by the results I got. I feel like I could have predicted some of it, but other parts were way past anything I would have guessed.

When I searched Hurricane Katrina on Bing, I noticed several things. The site at the top of the list was Wikipedia, which I guess should not be surprising. Many of the sites produced by the search were either government or education sites. This can be a good thing. We are always taught in school that if they end in .gov or .edu they must be reliable. But I do wonder how biased the government sites actually are and how much they may vary from the actual truth. I also noticed at least one site from an insurance agency. I find this to be really interesting. As I am researching a terrible natural disaster, they are trying to use the fear from the topic to sell me insurance. Only in America. The first several images that popped up were not of displaced people or demolished homes, but of satallite weather pictures. That is not what I expected at all. I would have expected to see pictures of the devastation.

As I was searching abortion on AltaVista, I again noticed the first site to pop up was Wikipedia. Many of the sites were fact sites, offering figures and statistics. There were also several medical sites on the first page of listings. Most of these sources seemed solid and not like that of a random person's opinion. They showed both sides of the argument as opposed to taking a stance on one side or the other. I did not notice any hard-core anti- or pro-abortion sites. Many of the sites offered help to those in situations where they may consider abortion. And as I would have expected, within the first few sites listed, there were some online encyclopedia and dictionary sites for those not familiar with the term. For this search, no images were shown automatically. I didn't give that much thought at first, but now I think that due to the nature of the topic, it could be that some censorship is used unless you specify images.

What I found most interesting was searching for Tiananmen Square. I used both Google and the Chinese version of Google. The results could not have been any more different. The American version showed the images we all expect of the tanks preparing to run over the protestor. The Chinese version showed pictures of beauty and celebration in China, not violence. Most of the sites offered on the American Google version focused on the violence and the massacre, tributes, and travel guides. And the first entry, surprise surprise was from Wikipedia. The sites found on the Chinese version discussed the beauty of the square and national pride. None of the ones I looked at had anything to do with the violence that took place there. It is almost like they are hiding it so that people will forget it happened and it will eventually go away. I have a tough time wrapping my brain around that.

The other thing I have a tough time wrapping my brain around is how Wikipedia can be the first entry in all these searches. Have they grown that big. It's no wonder all my students go straight there when they are trying to do research. It is thrust in their faces.

This really was an interesting, and in some cases, an eye-opening activity.

[Michael Cook]

This activity was all about learning what information is out there, the different ways to find it, and how different information can be on technology. It is very similar to any print texts we look at. Opinions vary and topics are shown in different lights depending on what source we choose to use when looking for something. Students need to know how to utilize the vast amount of imformation found online, but they also need to be taught how to properly search for information. Years ago, we would teach them to use a scholarly journal versus a tabloid magazine. They need the same instruction when it comes to technology and searching for material online. There are many millions of hits out there waiting for them; we simply need to show them how to sift through them and maybe even just use one search engine over another to find the information they need.

[Jason Swan]

So, using Google, MSN, and Yahoo, the results were practically the same. In each case (for each topic as well as for each search engine), Wikipedia was the first return. I guess that is an indication of how ubiquitous Wikipedia has become over the last decade. Many people trust it to provide information. Which, in itself, is an interesting result since Wikipedia is the grand-daddy of the Web 2.0 principle of user generated content.

I wonder if this is an indication that when it comes to trusting content, we seem to trust content created by other net users rather more than news and non-profit organizations.

I am somewhat confused about the google.cn results reported in this thread. Many people indicated that their goole.cn results were very graphic. However, even though I don't read Chinese, I could tell that not a single result in the first two pages of search returns had anything to do with the violent government crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protests. Google.com was thick with results about that event. Of course, the government controls the search results on google.cn, and that is one of the blacklisted topics.

It is interesting to see how technology can be used to manipulate content without our even knowing it, and yet, many of us trust it implicitly.

[William]

The three search engines I used for this assignment were Google, Cuil, and Bing.
• Tiananmen Square
Google (english) links first to a Wikipedia article about the 1989 protest. The second link is to a Wikipedia about Tiananmen Square in general. Three of the first four images returned were of 'Tank Man' the unknown man who stood up and delayed a column of tanks.
The Google (Chinese version) does not have any reference to the 89 protest and the first four images show an opulent palace and grounds.

The Cuil site returned pages split about 60/40 between the 1989 protests and the historical/architectural information. Interestingly, the first site returned was a flickr site. The sites that did not mention the 1989 protests were maintained by travel agencies.

The Bing engine returned sites of which about 90% mentioned the 1989 protests. I found it interesting that it had a large number of academic and news sites (bbc, George Washington Universtity, etc). It also had a passage from a book by Jonathan Spence about cultural revolution.


• Hurricane Katrina
Google and Bing had very similar results: a large number of sites from news agencies, education and organizations. Bing continued to list more results from official agencies and universities, and for this reason I will start using it with greater regularity.

Cuil had links to Wikipedia, the Red Cross, and a number of sites that had 'Katrina' in its url. This included 'photosfromKatrina' and 'katrinanewsonline.'


• Abortion
(I'm beginning to wonder if there's any topic in which a search engine WON'T first recommend Wikipedia).

Very interestingly, perhaps the most controversial topic also produced the most consistent results. All three engines returned www.abortionfacts.com, www.plannedparenthood.org/,gynpages.com, abortion.com. In addition, two of the three listed a number of sites including www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm,

Could this be a sign that, since the topic is so controversial, the results are manipulated and not the result of a search-engine algorithm?

[Scott Jewitt]

For the Search Engine Activity I used Yahoo, Excite, and Dogpile. I decided not to use Google because I always use that website and wanted to try different search engines.


Tiananmen Square:
The top three Yahoo results for “Tiananmen Square” were two Wikipedia results: “Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989,” and “Tiananmen Square,” and Answers.com: “Tiananmen Square.” The top three Excite results for the same phrase were: A dead link to an AARP website with the following message: “We apologize for the inconvenience. The page you are looking for may have been moved to another part of the site or removed completely. Thank you for visiting AARP.org;” a result from Amazon.com advertising free shipping for orders of $25 or more, and again a Wikipedia entry for “Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989.” The top three results from Dogpile were: the dead link to the AARP site, “Pictures of Tiananmen Square” from Allposters.com, and “Tiananmen Square Hotels” (Wikipedia entries were fourth and sixth).
Hurricane Katrina:
The top three Yahoo results for “Hurricane Katrina” were: first a recommendation to “Also Try: Hurricane Katrina Pictures, Hurricane Katrina Date,” then “News Results for Hurricane Katrina” (with links to several news sites or newspapers), the fist actual website was the “Hurricane Katrina Archive” from NOLA.com, second was an entry for “Hurricane Katrina” from Wikipedia, and the third result was an entry on “Hurricane Katrina” from NOAA.gov (government run weather website). The top three Excite searches returned: a link to Half.com, soliciting me to find what I need and save, a link to a book titled Embrace the Rain, and lastly the Wikipedia entry on “Hurricane Katrina.” Dogpile returned the following searches for “Hurricane Katrina:” a story from USA talking about the current state of New Orleans post-Katrina, Another solicitation from Half.com telling me I can “save on exactly what I need,” and the same link to Embrace the Rain.

Abortion:

The top three Yahoo results for “abortion” were: a link to the American Women’s Services, Family Planning Associates of Chicago, and a website called “Abortion-Alternatives.com.” These were all “Sponsor Sites” who according to Yahoo’s description pay to have their ads placed first based on search queries. Not surprisingly, Wikipedia was the first non-sponsor site returned. Excite returned the following results: a website titled “Challenges of Abortion” on www.knowledgeisempowering.com, A link to Bing.com titled “Info on Abortion,” and finally “North Carolina earns a D+” on www.prochoiceAmerica.org. The top three results for Dogpile were: A “Miami Abortion Specialist,” that appeared to be a 24 hour abortion clinic in Miami, FL, the same “Challenges of Abortion” site, and lastly, a link to the same www.prochoiceAmerica.com cite.

Trends:

Because I greatly disapprove of the credibility of Wikipedia, I am sorry to see it so prominently recommended in search results. The fact that anyone can write an entry, and so many students use it as a substitute for print text, makes me question the validity of the internet. As for the search engines themselves, I did see some trends develop. I noticed that Excite returned results for not only print sources (all be it half.com or amazon.com trying to sell me something), but also credible sometimes government run sites; ones that would be acceptable as research references (unlike Wikipedia). Dogpile seems to be a mix of socially valid and credible sources and paid sponsors who have commercial organizations designed to make profit (money). I like Yahoo because it would sometimes prompt me to try other related searches that would return images or prove as departure points for further investigation.

A skill that this activity highlights is the ability to interpret and weigh the credibility of your searches. Probably almost 75% of the (top three) results returned would not be valid sources for research. The impact is that students think they can just google anything and find out all the info they need. WRONG!!!!! As a prospective English teacher I plan to always require more print sources than internet sources and will never accept Wikipedia or Sparknotes. These sites that lack credibility unfortunately misguide students and make them lazy; it is a lot easier to google something will enjoying the comfort of your own home than it is to drive/commute to the library and look up a print source. In my experience almost everything I find on the internet can serve as a departure point or basic reference source; the internet can open new doors for investigation, however should not be relied on as the only source of information.

[alison]

This search engine activity was very interesting to me to find out not how different these sites are (because that‘s what I was expecting), but how similar their results are-though I realize they’re all combing through the same information available. I used google.com because I generally use google and I wanted to see how it compared with other sites; I also selected Bing.com because of recent ads describing it as a more direct search with fewer random hits; and I chose Lycos simply from a list of popular search engines.
The most popular site listed by far was Wikipedia, which is a knowledgeable source, but perhaps not the most unbiased or factual given that anybody can edit or submit information. I don’t know that it is any more subjective or less valid than other sites found, however. Everyone makes Wikipedia sound evil, while it may not be the most reliable source we should remember that ALL of our sources have authors, who are people, who have opinions, which may or may not show up in the article, which is published by companies who have an agenda or a particular audience in mind.

For the Tiananmen Square search I found that hits did not vary dramatically between engines. The first site listed for each search engine was Wikipedia. Google returned youtube next and then travel China sites. Lycos fetched answers.com followed by more travel websites and several search suggestions. Bing returned you tube and travel websites respectively.

For the Hurricane Katrina search I was pleased to see that more government sites showed up than commercial. Google returned wikipedia first, then NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), NOLA (New Orleans website), then a couple news sites and quickly moved into blog-mania. Lycos fetched NOLA, wikipedia, NOAA, but had several advertisements for books or information for sale at the top of the screen. Bing returned wikipedia, NOAA, Health and Human Services, and several other government websites. I was most pleased with Bing in this search.

For the abortion search which is highly politicized and opinion-based I found it harder to pull up sites that were not biased one way or the other, though I may be biased in my assessment of what a fair or reasonable source may be. My criterion is simply that both sides of empirically based information be shown. There is evidence supporting both sides as to safety, reliability, moral issues, etc. both of these should be made apparent to readers. I found many of the same sites near the top in this search, but they were in a different order. With google teen breaks.com was listed first (a site which only gave testaments of young women who regretted their abortions--not abiding by any unbiased rule). Next was wikipedia, then Planned Parenthood (while taking note of PPH’s stance, they provide no persuasion in either direction). Then abortion facts.com, which though they claimed to cover both sides provided the same links to questions regarding abortions, all with a clear anti-abortion stance. Lycos fetched abortion services websites in a different colored text box at the top followed by wikipedia, religious tolerance.com, which provided comprehensive information, and then abortion facts.com again. Bing returned wikipedia first, then abortion facts.com, then abortion.com. Bing also included a search of abortion clinics near Raleigh, though I didn’t enter any of that information as search criteria.
This was certainly an interesting project and definitely awakening to see what searches return from different engines. It makes me more aware of what is posted as FACT on the internet (or anywhere) but mostly the internet because it is so available. If I did not have any opinions of my own formed before looking up this information I could definitely see how an opinion could be shaped by someone else’s with no regard to fact or empirical data.

On an unrelated note, I found Lycos’ display of hits much more appealing than that of google or bing; I think the graphics, a thumbnail of the actual webpage, as well as text color, and white space contributed to this. Though I do not like that it does not have the text predictor when you type your search--maybe I’m just lazy, but I like that feature. I do like that Bing actually does cut out a lot of the crap that usually turns up on searches--it’s a very simple page and it seems to have good suggestions for related searched. I can say I probably would not have thought to analyze which I liked better aesthetically before this lesson.